Cash Rules Everything Around Me

Michael Drapcho
md605011@ohio.edu

“Why do something for free when you can get paid to do it?” It’s a common saying, and it makes sense. I can tell you with confidence that this writer would much rather be paid than do something for free.

Unfortunately for journalists, this way of thinking seems to be making its way into the practice of news gathering, as sources are being paid more and more often nowadays.

One might think that with the practices of checkbook journalism and news outlets like those owned by Rupert Murdoch, journalists may find it harder to find sources and interviews in a more traditional fashion. It is extremely troubling to think this way, but sadly, it looks as though it is true. In fact, checkbook journalism has been common practice for more than a century.

Perhaps the most frustrating part of checkbook journalism is that the networks and journalists paying for information paint the practice as a necessary evil. Rather state they than paying for the interview or information, they state that they are paying for something extra. They dance around the issue.

Other than the aforementioned obvious tap dance that news outlets do around the issue, the most 

alarming part of checkbook journalism is how common it is and how quickly it could change journalistic practices.

Snowball Effect

When checkbook journalism is mentioned, the initial reaction is usually that journalists will not be able to get any information without coughing up some cash. It’s a logical reaction. It makes sense, and to an extent, it’s probably true.

However, the more likely outcome will be the complete opposite. Journalists will be getting information from practically everyone. And if everyone has the information for a story, does anyone really have the information for a story?

The simple answer is no. The general public will be offering half-truths and even flat out lies just to make some money, making a journalist’s already difficult job even more difficult. In this situation, there is absolutely nothing keeping sources from offering up false information for a quick buck.

The news industry would suffer as a result. It would become even more difficult to determine which sources are reliable than it already is.

Where is checkbook journalism?

Though the hypothetical situation I just laid out has not yet come to fruition, checkbook journalism does still occur in today’s media landscape. The questionable practice is most common among tabloids and major television news networks.

                                          Source: CNN

Tabloids like People and US Weekly often shell out money to have exclusive photographs of celebrities or exclusive interviews with celebrities.

Some of the more notable cases of checkbook journalism in major television networks include CBS paying an alleged $100,000 for an interview with former president Richard Nixon in 1975. More recently, though, ABC News paid $200,000 for videos of Casey Anthony’s daughter.

The station pointed out that it did not violate any policies in purchasing the videos. What it did do, though, was place all the power in the hands of Anthony’s lawyers. They now had the option to choose what would be released and for how much, which is extremely problematic for journalists.

The problem with checkbook journalism isn't the money. It’s that it forces journalists to question the integrity and motives of a source or a story.